KAMLESHBHAI JENTIBHAI MAKVANAversusSTATE OF GUJARAT
- Disposal
- 28-REJECTED @ ADM.STAGE
- Bench
- ILESH VORA
Holding
The court held that the authority's order rejecting the parole application was valid and the application must be dismissed.
Summary
The petitioner, sentenced to 750 days of imprisonment, applied through the jail for parole leave after the competent authority rejected his earlier application. The rejection was based on a negative police opinion, concerns about potential breach of peace, risk of absconding, and the presence of other family members who could provide financial support. The petitioner argued that the grounds cited in his application warranted the grant of parole. The court noted that parole is a discretionary privilege, not a right, and is governed by the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959. After reviewing the application, the jail’s remarks, and the authority’s reasons for denial, the court found no infirmity in the rejection. Consequently, the court dismissed the parole application.
Issues considered
- Whether the competent authority's rejection of the parole application was legally valid and merits judicial interference
Subjects
Judgment
R/SCR.A/7688/2026 ORDER DATED: 05/06/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (PAROLE LEAVE) NO. 7688 of
2026
==========================================================
KAMLESHBHAI JENTIBHAI MAKVANA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
THROUGH JAIL for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR RONAK RAVAL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA
Date : 05/06/2026
ORAL ORDER
1. The applicant, who has been sentenced to undergo 750
days imprisonment, has filed present application through jail
for releasing him on parole leave as the competent authority
has rejected his parole application.
2. The convict is claiming parole leave on the grounds
mentioned in the application.
3. Record indicates that application of parole leave has
been rejected as there is negative opinion of the police
authority, there are other members in the family and his
brother who is shown as guarantor can also provide financial
assistance to his family and there is apprehension of breach of
peace and jumping the parole.
4. It is settled law that the grant of parole is not a right
vested with the prisoner and is rather a privilege available to
the prisoner on fulfilling certain conditions. This is a
Page 1 of 2
R/SCR.A/7688/2026 ORDER DATED: 05/06/2026
discretionary power which has to be exercised by the
authorities conferred with such powers under the provisions of
the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959.
5. Having regard to the grounds mentioned in the
application for parole, jail remarks and reason for rejecting
parole leave by the authority, this Court does not find any
infirmity with the order passed by the authority while rejecting
the claim of the prisoner for grant of parole. Consequently, the
application deserves to be dismissed and same is accordingly
dismissed.
(ILESH J. VORA,J)
TAUSIF SAIYED
Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: TAUSIFAHMED SAIYED(HC01401), PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 05/06/2026 10:47:53
Page 2 of 2
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.